Sadiq Khan: It is important that we consult the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about what the needs and demands are locally. One of the benefits of committing ourselves to £15 billion of investment in our railways over the next five years is that there is a possibility of his residents getting new rolling stock. If we followed the suggestions of others-that we should cut the amount that we invest in our railways this year, and then cut it in crude terms over the next five years-there would be no chance at all of his constituents getting new rolling stock.

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to talk about numbers. In 2009-10, we secured from our Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review an increase of 2.25 per cent. expenditure on transport. Had we taken the advice of others, including the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, the increase would have been just 1 per cent.-effectively a cut in 2009-10 of £840 million. That would have meant no chance of new rolling stock, no chance of investment in Crossrail and no chance of any announcements on electrification. Over the next period, we have a choice. We have a choice to invest in High Speed 2 and we have a choice to continue to invest in the electrification of the Great Western line and the Liverpool to Manchester line, which will have knock-on effects on rolling stock. On the other hand, we have a choice to listen to the advice of some who want to cut savagely from the amount we invest in transport, which will mean more overcrowding, less investment and-

Chris Mole: We have agreed with Network Rail that it will make up to £50 million available in the near future to tackle improvements at the 10 key stations identified in the stations champions' report as being in most need of improvement, seven of which are in the north-west.

Chris Mole: I assure my hon. Friend that there are a number of Government initiatives committed to station improvements. They include the national stations improvement programme, a five-year initiative worth £150 million for the modernisation of approximately 150 medium-sized stations, and-in the north-west-a £1.5 million upgrade of Ormskirk station, to which £500,000 has been contributed by the national stations improvement programme. The Access for All 10-year programme, worth £370 million, will improve access to stations, and the Access for All small schemes fund will enable more than 1,000 stations to benefit from about £6 million a year.
	Manchester Victoria is a potential candidate for the national stations improvement programme funding. The planned improvements include cleaning and redecorating passenger seating-

Chris Mole: I am sure that the train operating company that runs services through Macclesfield station will want to ensure that the environment is as pleasant as possible in order to attract as many passengers as possible to the service. Yesterday I was able to inaugurate the opening of a bridge at Southampton airport station which has received £2 million from the Government under the Access for All programme, and it did indeed include a very nicely covered bridge.

Paul Clark: Obviously, I take every opportunity to work with colleagues to improve the position of the BTP and those involved in security at our stations. In 1997, there were just over 2,100 BTP officers, whereas there are now 3,200 police community support officers patrolling our network. Obviously, the budget is a matter for the BTP authority.

Robert Goodwill: This summer, the Government spent £2.3 million on their controversial "spooky eyes" drug-driving campaign, suggesting that police officers can easily spot a person who has taken drugs. However, every day we see drivers openly using mobile phones, which is a much more obvious offence. Despite the tougher penalties, is the Minister concerned that drivers think they can get away with this dangerous behaviour unless they bump into another vehicle?

Sadiq Khan: May I put on the record a recognition of the work that my hon. Friend has done, and not only in lobbying me? I remember that at the previous oral questions she asked a similar question about access issues for her constituents on rural buses. The £1 billion that goes towards concessionary bus travel in off-peak hours means that 11 million older and disabled people in England can use buses at off-peak times. Had we accepted the advice to make a cut in this year's budget from a 2.25 per cent. increase to a 1 per cent. increase, that would have led to cuts. We will not means-test this, or cut it as some would want us to do.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is a mate-a savage mate-but I have to say that there are dangers in trying to face both ways. I caution him against doing so. We know, because we have seen the London Councils minutes, that in 2008-09 the councils spent £5 million on off-peak travel caused by the additional intake of out-of-London commuters. We gave them £55 million. They did not send us a cheque for the difference. We know from discussions that I have had with the Tory chair of the transport and environment committee that next year they will need £18 million, with the TfL agreement. We are giving them £30 million. I look forward to receiving a cheque from the Tory chair for the difference.

Sadiq Khan: Since our last questions in October, my Department has made a number of significant announcements, including today, about winning bids from a £30 million fund for green buses that aims to encourage and help bus operators and local authorities to buy new low-carbon buses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We have also made announcements about a further £30 million programme to develop electric car-charging points in six leading cities across the country, and about a review by Sir Peter North of the law on drink and drug driving, for which a report is expected in March 2010.

Fiona Mactaggart: Slough contributes £8 billion a year to Britain's gross domestic product. Its station is the fourth busiest on the Great Western main line, yet the recent rail utilisation strategy proposes no improvement to our appalling commuter rail service. However, buried in it is a tiny opportunity to connect the Great Western main line directly from the west to Heathrow. Can the Minister please put that proposal higher up the agenda? Unless we have a rail connection to the airport from the west we will lose opportunities to build Britain's economy.

David Taylor: The Association of Train Operating Companies recently said that the risks that it takes on in providing rail services to the public should be reduced. Does the Minister agree that with annual ATOC profits approaching £1 billion from a public subsidy of £1.5 billion, we should be renationalising rail passenger services rather than tinkering with an already wildly generous franchise mechanism?

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman wants a private conversation later, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we can arrange a date.
	I think that what hon. Members were trying to say to me was that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) is no longer a Conservative Member of Parliament. I apologise to him. Former and present Conservatives alike, however, seem to develop a new policy each time they rise to their feet.
	I was trying to say something about the economic matters that will be before the European Council next week. First, it is interesting to note that all European countries have adopted broadly similar measures. All member states have adopted significant stimulus packages, even those which, according to some-including the hon. Member for Rayleigh last year-were initially sceptical. For example, on 20 February 2009 the second German stimulus package, worth €50 billion, was adopted. Together with the first German stimulus of €32 billion, it represented an investment of 3 per cent. of GDP over two years, stimulating an additional 1 per cent. of growth. Germany invested €80 billion for recapitalisation of its banks, and France invested €40 billion. Those measures are very similar to the measures we adopted here.
	Secondly, concerted action in the G20 and the European Union has been vital. The EU's response to the crisis has demonstrated exceptional unity of purpose in its efforts to restore jobs and growth. To date, its combined fiscal stimulus has exceeded €400 billion. I am certain that without that combined effort we would have faced a worldwide slump or depression akin to what our forebears went through in the 1930s.

Chris Bryant: No. I defer to nobody on the Conservative Benches on the protection we give and the efforts we make to ensure the long-term sustainability of our defence industry. Indeed, many of my constituents in south Wales work in a variety of firms engaged in different elements of the defence industry, and we seek to protect those important jobs. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation that we do business only with our American colleagues. Of course, they are very important allies to us, but my experience-having seen British troops fighting alongside Dutch personnel, Italians, Spaniards, Danish personnel, the French, the Germans and those from many other countries-is that our alliances in Europe are significant and important to us.
	I turn now to climate change. I said earlier that no economy can pretend that it is a hermetically sealed unit. The same is of course true of our environment and our climate, which is why we believe the ongoing discussions in Copenhagen are so important. Europe has a leading role to play in limiting the damaging effects of dangerous climate change and in leading global action as the world moves to a low-emission, low-carbon economy. The October European Council made important progress on climate finance, agreeing that developing countries are likely to require financial support amounting to about €100 billion per year by 2020 if they are successfully to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. It also agreed that between €22 billion and €50 billion of this overall package should come from public finance.
	The agreement on climate finance demonstrates the EU's continued leadership as a global actor, but we must keep working together to reach a coherent EU position on the key remaining issues. That includes the demonstration of EU readiness to move to a 30 per cent. emissions reduction target if other developed countries offer comparable commitments at Copenhagen. The December European Council, which meets towards the halfway point of the Copenhagen summit, offers the opportunity for European leaders to react positively should commitments from other developed countries warrant such a reaction. It remains vital that the EU continue to show leadership in achieving an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen. There is political momentum towards such a deal, but it needs continued nurturing and encouragement. Any political agreement must be supported with a clear timetable for delivering a full legal treaty as soon as possible. Slow progress is simply not enough if we are to avoid seeing the shadow of climate change darken all other issues on our agenda.
	I had thought that I would have unanimous cross-party support on this issue, but I note that a former shadow Home Secretary has joined the ranks of the Tory deniers, saying that he thinks the science is only 80 per cent. proven. I must say that if I thought there was an 80 per cent. chance of being knocked down when I crossed the road, I would not cross the road. Similarly, the Tory grouping in the European Parliament has broken free: only last week, 18 members of the group, including two Tory MEPs and, most significantly, the hand-picked leader of the group, Michal Kaminski, voted against Tory policy to agree an 80 per cent. cut in emissions by 2050. I see some hang-dog faces on the other side of the House.
	The Council will also be invited to adopt a new five-year strategy document, entitled the "Stockholm programme", setting out our high-level priorities in the field of justice and home affairs. Collaboration on justice and home affairs has already delivered major benefits for the citizens of this country. Since the European arrest warrant came into force in 2004, it has allowed the UK to extradite more than 1,000 fugitives to other member states and brought more than 350 wanted criminals to the UK to face justice, including Hussain Osman, one of those involved in the attempted attacks in London on 21 July 2005. I simply cannot understand why the Conservative party refuses to support the European arrest warrant.

Andrew Murrison: A little while ago, the Conservatives asked the Minister or his predecessor what the composition of the EU diplomatic corps-the EAS-would be. We wanted to know in particular which defence attachés would form part of it. Of course, we were particularly interested in British co-optees. Can the Minister enlighten us about that now that the Lisbon treaty has passed into law?

Mark Francois: I shall begin by dealing with a number of specific issues of European concern. First, Iran: one of the most important matters facing the nations of Europe today, and one that will rightly be discussed at the European Council, is the question of our relations with Iran.
	We are deeply concerned about the Iranian nuclear programme. For more than a year Iran has refused to engage seriously with either the US or the International Atomic Energy Agency, despite the historic offer of engagement from President Obama. Given that the IAEA director recently said:
	"We have effectively reached a dead end"
	on Iran, we are fast approaching a point where decisions about new sanctions will have to be made. Unless Iran changes course dramatically in the coming weeks, Conservatives believe that new UN and EU sanctions should be adopted in the new year as a matter of urgency. Those sanctions should include, at the very least, a total ban on arms sales to Iran, a tough new UN inspection regime, a ban on new investment in Iranian oil and gas, and action against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The failure to deliver on such pledges is one reason why Iran feels that it can challenge the international community with impunity, since it sees little concrete demonstration of will to prevent it from going down that path. That must change, and we need concerted EU action in that area. The Minister also realised that this is a very important topic, and I hope that when he winds up he will be able to indicate a timetable that the Government envisage for new sanctions against Iran.
	Secondly, Bosnia: the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains of extreme concern to us. The country is not making progress. The international community seems not to have a proper strategy and the way forward remains most unclear.
	On Monday, I discussed with the Minister a new stabilisation and association agreement between the EU and Montenegro. I highlighted the fact that although there is a long way to go-and progress to date is certainly imperfect-a way forward into the Euro-Atlantic world is possible to imagine. By contrast, in Bosnia and Herzegovina the road ahead is simply blocked by inaction, and in some cases by the deliberate blocking of urgent constitutional reform. It is hugely disappointing that the SAA that was agreed with Bosnia has led to few real reforms and that important conditions remain unfulfilled.
	There is now a real danger that the progress made since the 1995 Dayton peace accords may be reversed. The international community-in particular, the US and EU member states-must remain vigilant. Plans to replace the office of the High Representative with an EU special representative and to downgrade EUFOR should not be implemented until Bosnia and Herzegovina can function on its own and a genuine process of constitutional reform and the allocation of state and defence property are fulfilled.
	If agreement can be reached, Bosnia can move forward into a process that could eventually lead to EU membership. The potential gains for the Bosnian people are huge, matched only by the potential costs of failure. It is time for the Bosnian politicians to put the interests of their people above those of sectional interests and allow the state and people to progress.
	Thirdly, Cyprus: we have just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, one of the happiest moments in Europe's recent history, yet on the island of Cyprus there is still a divided European capital city. The Minister and I have both visited Cyprus this year, and we would both like to see a settlement achieved. The current set of talks is now over a year old, and some progress has undoubtedly been made. President Christofias and Mr. Talat are meeting regularly and have discussed a range of issues, including the most contentious. There remain reasons to be optimistic that a lasting settlement can be made, but there are some clouds on the horizon.
	Public opinion on both sides shows signs of shifting away from support for reunification. Further, it could be the case that the April election in Cyprus's Turkish community might not produce a leader as committed to reunification as Mr. Talat. Further delay in reaching a settlement could risk missing the current opening in the clouds. We recommend that the Government use the European Council meeting as an opportunity to stress to the Cypriot Government our support for a settlement and the need for both sides to show leadership in order to reach a deal.
	At the forthcoming EU summit, the Government should also continue to support the principle of Turkish membership of the EU. We should be prepared to remind our European partners how damaging it could be if Turkey ever came to believe that there was no prospect of accession to the EU. We should also be prepared to raise with Ankara the need to grasp this opportunity to achieve a lasting settlement in Cyprus, perhaps through its demonstrating some greater flexibility that could be to the ultimate benefit of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots alike.
	Fourthly, the Copenhagen summit begins on Monday. It is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change, and tackling climate change is rightly at the top of the EU's agenda. Any such successor deal agreed to at Copenhagen must be a rigorous one that binds the world in a common commitment to keep the rise in global temperatures to below 2° C. Any such deal must find an international mechanism to help people in the world's poorest countries protect themselves against future floods and famine, and stop the destruction of the rainforest-the green lungs of the planet. We hope that, with our European partners, we obtain such an outcome next week.
	Reference was made to a vote on climate change in the European Parliament last week. For the record, I should like to add that 13 members of the Liberal Democrat Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group abstained on the motion, while five members of the socialist group-including a number of Polish MEPs with whom the Labour party is allied-voted against. I think that it is important to hear about the voting records of all sides in this particular debate.

Mark Francois: I am grateful for those comments-particularly the last one. I was kind enough to let the right hon. Gentleman intervene, so if he were to drop a line to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) I would be indebted unto him for that.
	Returning to the First Secretary of State and the business of appointments, I think that the First Secretary realised, after he did not get the High Representative's job, that a further blunder had been made. He wrote in the  Financial Times-a week after my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks had written in that publication-that
	"the distribution of the big economic portfolios in the next European Commission"
	is
	"critically important... The men and women that José Manuel Barroso, Commission president, appoints to key dossiers such as competition, the internal market and trade will carry much weight in defining the direction of EU policy.
	We know what followed. Against this Government's belated objections, Michel Barnier was appointed as the Internal Market Commissioner. Against this Government's further objections, his portfolio includes financial services. Both the Prime Minister and the President of France had a number of conversations with Mr. Barroso about that portfolio, and it is clear that the Commission President took a great deal more notice of his conversations with the French President than he did of those with our Prime Minister. The French President now says that
	"the English are big losers in this affair"
	and that
	"French ideas for regulation are triumphing in Europe".
	It is clear that this Government have been comprehensively outmanoeuvred by the French, and that this country is now left playing catch-up.
	That leads us on to the financial services industry and its relations with the EU. The financial services industry is a vital national economic interest, and to further it we need to learn the lessons from the crisis and improve the global co-ordination of supervision and regulation. However, as Mervyn King said,
	"banks are global in life, but national in death".
	Bank failures can have fiscal consequences-something that we are only too familiar with in the United Kingdom. That means not only that European co-operation is essential for the promotion of financial stability, but that we must safeguard taxpayers' interests when it comes to decisions that the new European authorities make. That must remain the clearest of red lines.
	Yesterday's ECOFIN conclusions seemed to be clear:
	"decisions taken by the ESAs should not impinge in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of the member states."
	The Chancellor claims now to have secured his red line, but that represents staggering complacency when we look beyond the press release and into the detail. The new supervisory bodies can make decisions that have a fiscal impact either in a crisis or as a consequence of binding mediation. However, to overturn such decisions, the UK will need to secure the support of a majority of member states under qualified majority voting. We have no veto over those decisions, and as one EU official put it:
	"The real concession is that burden of proof will rest with Britain".
	That makes it very clear that the real loser from yesterday is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the British taxpayer.
	Sadly, that complacency is indicative of the Government's broader approach. We have seen it before over the alternative investment fund managers directive and the appointment of the Internal Market Commissioner.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, when the financial regulations were being debated I was leading the European Scrutiny Committee on a pre-presidency visit to Madrid; I would like to have spoken during those debates. The Chair of the Treasury Committee was also elsewhere with his Committee, and he might have made a vital contribution.
	The House wishes to pass a motion stating that it has considered the matter of European affairs. I hope it will agree that such consideration would not be complete if we did not give consideration to the process of parliamentary scrutiny. I shall come to that issue in my capacity not only as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee but as one who has an interest in the effect of the Lisbon treaty. I described that treaty as a tipping point, and I stand by that. It has changed the geography and processes of not only what will happen in Brussels but, I hope, what will happen in this House and elsewhere.
	First, I should like to raise a few matters of substance to underscore the fact that we need changes to the structures to assist effective scrutiny. I turn to what I think are agreed to be the three new supervisory or watchdog committees on insurance, banking and the securities market in Europe. Those who, like me, have followed the process for many years will see that they are just beefed-up Lamfalussy committees. There was already the Lamfalussy supervision process, which proved inadequate, just as the supervision and regulation in this country was inadequate for dealing with the inventiveness and gambling of the banking, insurance and derivatives markets that brought this and many other countries to the serious position they are in, with massive public debt and taxpayers owning many of the banks.
	For some reason, we have been unable to prevent banks from doing certain things; I noticed that Royal Bank of Scotland has put aside £940 million for bonuses, yet it has just been revealed that it might be exposed to the tune of £2 billion to the Dubai debacle; I think that the total is £5 billion among British banks, even with the latest scrutiny process.
	The agreement on a European systemic risk board has not been mentioned. That would be a gathering of all the EU's 27 central bankers to try to do something consistently across Europe. I do not wish to score points about the weakness of Government or the failures of the regulatory authorities at our own level, but we should welcome that board. Together with the Americans, with the gambling nature of their banking, insurance and derivatives markets, we almost brought down the world's economies to the same degree as happened during the great depression.
	I know that Opposition Members would not say this, but, as was mentioned in debates before the Council last November, without our Prime Minister leading Europe and giving a clear lead to the President of the United States, we would have ended up in a massive depression. It appears to me that allowing some other people a say and oversight in respect of the behaviour of our banking, insurance and derivatives markets is not very much to give up from London.
	The European Scrutiny Committee will retain-and, I hope, use more and more-the right to call for an opinion from a Select Committee that specialises in another area of policy. We called for an opinion from the Treasury Committee, and that led to its inquiry and, I hope, fed some common sense into the debate on Tuesday.
	I want to mention some matters that may seem minor but that are important to our constituents. If most of them read this debate up until this point, they would wonder whether Front Benchers live in the same world as they do. It was point scoring and personalising-more like "The X Factor" than a serious debate about what affects people's lives. For example, in 2005 the European Commission ruled that it was illegal for European citizens not to be paid the same wages and for people in the shipping industry in my area of Scotland not to be given the minimum wage. That is an important matter that was debated yesterday in relation to an amendment to the Equality Bill. However, it is still possible to use non-EU citizens, and such people are being paid £1.27 to sail boats between the islands and the mainland of Scotland. The Commission could ban that for EU citizens so that it would not happen to people who came from the A8 accession countries to work in the offshore industries. My constituents would welcome that. The TUC and the Scottish TUC are campaigning strongly to have such a provision extended to everyone through the Race Relations Act 1976.  [ Interruption. ] I have just been told that there is a 15-minute time limit on speeches. That is not necessarily welcome, but useful to know.
	Another apparently minor matter is the use of the European globalisation fund, which I have raised with the Scotland Secretary. That has become a fund into which people from different countries are dipping to mitigate the effects of recession, not necessarily the effects of the globalisation process. In the European Scrutiny Committee, we have insisted that such instances be reported to the House, in what we call an "A" brief, whenever they occur, because they are matters of interest. Some have been very serious. For example, in the automotive industry, when Saab lost more than 4,000 jobs Sweden asked for a contribution from the fund. Ireland got a substantial sum of money when Dell decided to pull out one of its factories. It was remarkable to find that the Netherlands got about £1 million following 570 redundancies in a construction company. Given the massive loss of employment in this country, if that is what the money is available for, we should be asking for it. Every time these funds are paid out, there is a net contribution from the UK. We should be similarly asking for funds, but for some reason the Government are not doing so. I have particularly made the point that we are losing to Ireland 500 jobs at Bausch and Lomb, which makes contact lenses. We hear that Ireland is getting money, while we are losing jobs. There is something wrong with that, and we should look at it seriously.
	Let me turn to matters in the Committee's remit that we have been raising with the Government. First, I want to talk about enlargement. Most recently, that has centred on learning the lessons of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, both of which, not only in the estimation of our Committee but that of the Commission, still have an enormous amount of work to do in creating an independent judiciary and a system of governance that can and will tackle corruption and organised crime. We said at the time that those countries were allowed in too early, and they have been backsliding since. We have recently expressed to the Government a firm view about Croatia, which is next in line unless it is over-leaped by Iceland, which is looking for a rescue package for its financial crash. We say that Croatia must demonstrate actual conditionality. In other words, before accession, it must have a strong track record of effective implementation of the necessary machinery and success in tackling the ills that continue to blight them-that is, a fully functioning legal system and a track record of tackling corruption at the highest level.

Edward Davey: The House will not be surprised to know that I do not know the full CV of the civil servant Jonathan Faull, but the issue-at least, this seems to concern other Conservative Members-is surely whether the British interest will be heard. Clearly, Jonathan Faull is a British civil servant.
	The other reason why I think people are getting a little bit overheated over Michel Barnier is that one person does not decide the laws in Europe. The Commission itself contains checks and balances-Commissioners have to agree before directives are put forward. The directives then have to go through the Council and the Parliament. With the co-decision process and with Brits chairing the two key parliamentary committees, I think we can be relatively reassured. If people are in any doubt about the power of the Parliament, I refer them to the draft directive on hedge funds-the alternative investment fund management directive-which has understandably caused a lot of consternation.
	The draft directive went to the European Parliament, and the economic and monetary affairs committee, which is chaired by a Liberal Democrat MEP, commissioned, and in recent weeks published, a damning report on it, saying that the impact assessment that the Commission put forward was unacceptable. My colleague Sharon Bowles is leading the fight to ensure that the directive is not passed in its current form. That is the way we do business in this House, and the way people in the European Parliament do business-giving proper scrutiny to draft legislation. I again implore people not simply to listen to some of the British press when they are screeching, but to look at the actual facts. There are checks and balances, and they are working.
	I shall conclude my remarks on that issue by talking about Michel Barnier. I do not think it does the British interest any service if we dismiss someone who actually has quite a good track record, just because he is French; that really would be extremely narrow-minded. I think that we ought to be getting used to French politicians, particularly President Sarkozy, grandstanding, and we should look at the reality of what happens afterwards, which amounts to much less than the rhetoric that sometimes comes out of the Elysée palace. I am not saying that we should not be on our guard, but there are checks and balances in the system that prevent one person from railroading legislation that would undermine our interests.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. I could give him three or four examples from different countries, such as the Töben case in Germany and several others in Poland-I believe that the Poles will have a particular constitutional issue to sort out when we consider reforming the EAW.
	The Liberal Democrats have argued, in this House and the European Parliament, and against the Conservatives, for measures linked to the EAW at the European level to ensure that British people in court in other EU countries-not just because of the EAW, but perhaps having been arrested while on holiday, working or living in those countries-have better protections and the minimum guarantees of legal rights that do not exist in the EU at the moment. We want to push that case.
	The Conservatives, however, have always opposed that approach. I am afraid that their position is completely inconsistent: they complain about the EAW because it does not guarantee those minimum legal rights, but when those rights are proposed, they oppose them. They are in a tricky position. Any future Government will have to answer such questions, not the spurious, theoretical questions about some mythical idea that a future British Government could renegotiate social employment legislation.
	Finally, what worries me particularly about the Conservatives' position on Europe is their view on defence policy. I regret the fact that we did not have enough time to debate defence in full in our debates on the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, Conservative colleagues and I complained about that at the time. However, the Conservative defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), has attacked much of the co-operation on defence, particularly the European Defence Agency. My concern about his attacks is that they are factually incorrect. He talks about the European Defence Agency as having a
	"supranational role for procurement inside the European Union."-[ Official Report, 23 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 367.]
	He clearly does not understand how the European Defence Agency works. Its whole remit and the framework within which it works are based on unanimity. Even the workings of the board of the European Defence Agency mean that day-to-day matters are decided on the basis of qualified majority voting. However, if a member state objects to them, they can be referred back, so that they are decided on a unanimous vote. That ought to be in the British interest. The idea that the European Defence Agency is a supranational body to which we have surrendered control is simply wrong.
	What worries me in practice is that the Conservatives oppose some of the excellent work currently done, albeit on a small scale, by the European Defence Agency. For example, work is being done on something called the helicopter initiative. The Conservatives have rightly criticised the Government's record on helicopters in Afghanistan and other theatres. One of the advantages of the European Defence Agency's helicopter initiative is that it will ensure that some citizens of other member states are properly trained so that they can fly helicopters in theatres such as Afghanistan. The Conservatives' opposition to the European Defence Agency would stop that initiative taking place and thereby prevent us from securing a much needed supply of trained helicopter pilots into Afghanistan from other member states when, interestingly, at other times the Conservatives complain about other member states not pulling their weight. The European Defence Agency and our co-operation on defence are ways to ensure that other member states begin to play a proper role. I am afraid that the Conservative position is completely unfathomable.
	Britain gets short-changed in Europe when it fights straw men such as the European Defence Agency, co-operation on crime and so on, which is not in the interests of the British people. I hope that between now and the election the Conservatives will think again, change their position on some of those key issues, and face up to the Eurosceptics in their party and the press. If they do not and if they then take power, as either a majority or a minority Government, with the same approach, that will be hugely damaging to British interests, whether in co-operation on crime, co-operation on the environment or co-operation on the economy. That is a matter of huge significance to this country's future. Let us hope that the Conservatives think again.

Malcolm Moss: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who served for a time-perhaps it was too short a time-with distinction as Minister for Europe and is now serving with distinction as Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. His kind comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) are welcome and on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's speaking about human trafficking in the way he did underlined yet again that when Europe and its nations need to come together to address a key problem, they fail. Human trafficking is just another example of where we need to be more pragmatic in our approach, in sharing the issues and in dealing with them in a unified way.
	I share the disappointment of my Front-Bench team that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off on the EU's budget for the 15th time in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. It is very unfortunate that the EU, with the enormous powers that it yields and a gargantuan budget to match, continually faces such serious allegations from its own auditors. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight some of the nonsenses that have been recorded regarding projects funded by the EU in recent years.
	My first example took place under the umbrella of the common agricultural policy, when €173,000 was given to the luxury golf resort called the Monte de Quinta Club in the Algarve in Portugal. According to the resort's website, guests can choose between
	"the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites."
	It would be interesting to know whether that appropriation has been challenged and the money reclaimed. My second example is that of a Swedish farmer who received a subsidy, albeit small, of €200 through the EU's single farm payment scheme for land on which he grew cannabis-we are told that he had filled in all the required forms correctly. Last, but certainly not least, is the example of the €4 million subsidy given in 2002 to seven Italian orange farmers who failed to grow a single orange between them.
	It is not just the EU's agricultural policy that is not fit for purpose; another key area of waste is the EU's structural and cohesion funds-its second largest spending area, representing almost a third of the budget. The European Court of Auditors concluded in its report on the 2008 budget that the structural and cohesion funds remain problematic and are
	"the area most affected by errors".
	Worryingly, the Court estimated that at least 11 per cent. of the total amount paid out in grants from those funds should not have been paid out in the first place.
	The structural and cohesion funds are intended to narrow the economic disparities among member states, and key recipients included Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece after they joined the EU in the 1970s and 1980s. Following the eastern enlargement in 2004 and 2007, most of the recipients of the funds are now central and eastern European states. Despite the €45 billion poured into the funds from member states every year, the OECD has not found any conclusive evidence that the funds have had a positive impact on the economies of the states receiving them. In fact, an OECD report from September 2007 stated that
	"regional disparities are not falling, or at best declining very slowly".
	It calculated that at the current rate of convergence it would take 170 years just to halve the economic disparities between different regions in the EU. A major reason for the extraordinary levels of waste and mismanagement is the sheer size and complexity of the budget. As the EU's auditors pointed out in their recent report, in many situations the errors are a consequence of too complex rules and regulations.
	There are several ways in which the budget can be improved. At the moment, EU rules state that allocated funds must be paid out within two years or the money will be cancelled. That, of course, encourages member states to spend the money as quickly as possible without due scrutiny or responsibility. Bringing the structural and cohesion funds under national control would, in our opinion, simplify the EU budget and inject national accountability, greater transparency and more involvement by national Parliaments. It would, we believe, reduce waste and mismanagement and establish a better link between performance and receipt of subsidies.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful for confirmation from the hon. Gentleman that we are moving in the right direction.
	One of Tony Blair's conditions for giving up parts of Britain's rebate was that the Commission should conduct a wide-ranging review of EU spending. I am disappointed that the deadline for the review at the end of 2009 is unlikely to be met. However, a leaked draft paper on the budget review suggests that the Commission, once it has got its act together, will put forward several worthy proposals for reform. They will include some proposals that would not serve in Britain's best interest, but I welcome the proposals significantly to reduce the amount of money spent on agriculture and to reform the structural and cohesion funds.
	As far back as 2003, the then Prime Minister wrote in  The Times that the structural and cohesion funds should be returned to the control of the member states. Will the Government push for that in the EU's next budget negotiations; or is the Prime Minister-and is the Minister-prepared to give up this pledge just as his predecessor gave up part of our rebate in return for nothing?
	The UK is now the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget according to Treasury figures. We pay almost £10 billion a year into the EU's budget for 2007 to 2013 and get back about £5.2 billion. Crucially, the UK's net contribution will rise from £4.1 billion in 2009-10 to £6.4 billion in 2011-12. That is after the European Parliament voted in October to increase Britain's payments by £5 million a day, against the advice of the European Commission and the European Council.
	Moreover, the UK is also the EU member that receives the least back from the budget per head. According to figures from Open Europe, we receive only €770 per head in EU funding, which is lower than any other member state. It is half as much as France, which receives €1,480, and a quarter as much as Ireland, which receives €3,090. Perversely, the richest country in the EU-Luxembourg-gets more than €22,000 per capita because it benefits from hosting several EU agencies.

Mark Harper: I know that it was only a joke, but there is a serious side to what the hon. Gentleman has said about Labour politicians. Perhaps one reason why they are so attracted to Europe is that they can do very nicely out of it. I notice that Baroness Ashton, from her appointment as EU High Representative, will have an annual salary of £270,000, which is significantly more than the Prime Minister of our country gets. The total allowances and perks that she will receive while in the Commission will net her an estimated £4 million-very nice if you can get it!

Austin Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection, because clearly Baroness Ashton deserves the money. She is only following the example of the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party in building up a huge pension plan, which sustained the party for a long period.
	I was talking about today's skirmish, in which our side is being led not by the Foreign Secretary but by our hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. He is acting not as the King but as the Rupert in this particular battle, and I must say that he is doing it very well. He is making a brilliant fist of his job, but I wish that his ability and eloquence were applied to a better cause than the Euro-enthusiasm that he has always manifested. He is right in the tradition of first-class Foreign Office minds, in that he now devotes all his effort and attention to developing second-class arguments for the third-class-indeed, third-rate-institution called the European Union. Every defeat must be interpreted as a victory and every loss as a gain, and we must always say that Britain leads, however humiliated Britain is.
	The Foreign Office and its Ministers seem to live in a different European Union from the rest of the country. The US Department of Defence has a situation room; the Foreign Office has a fantasy room, where matters European are discussed. There is a naïve view of Europe as the Foreign Office would like it to be, not as it actually is: a Europe that is kind to small countries and helpful to poor ones, even while it excludes their agriculture from our markets; a Europe that is of great benefit to the UK, even while it makes enormous demands on us, with a growing deficit and contribution burden; a Europe that defers to British wisdom, even while a new leadership of the European Union emerges as Angela Merkel endeavours, successfully, to interpose herself into the world's greatest love affair of Sarkozy with Sarkozy-it is now in fact a threesome. That is what dominates Europe; we do not, and it is no use pretending that we do.
	Another example of such Euro-think is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the latest appointments as a triumph; I think that that is what he said. Personally, I think that it is a shame that Tony Blair did not emerge as the President of Europe. He would have done well in that position. He can convince anyone of anything. He might have been able to convince people of the benefits of Europe, given his eloquence. Europe certainly needs someone of his vigour, energy and traffic-stopping ability.
	The appointments show what Europe really wants, and it is not the flair of that kind of leader. Europe wants to be a bigger Belgium. That is the European aspiration: to be a bigger Belgium, dominated of course by France and Germany, which is inward-looking, has low growth and high unemployment-it is the black spot of the advanced world-and maintains agricultural protection to keep out the agricultural production of smaller countries. It is true that we have the foreign policy post-

Austin Mitchell: No, I am not listening to another account of the incomes of European Commissioners.
	We have the foreign policy post, which escalates in title even as it diminishes in power. It is now High Representative-or perhaps it is Lord High Representative now. It is a job as important as herding cats-a collection of cats that do not particularly want to go in any direction that we might, whether that be into Iraq or into Afghanistan.
	In this situation, we have the rather useless foreign policy portfolio of the High Representative, but the French have grabbed the key economic portfolio of the internal market, which the City sees as a terrifying threat. The Chancellor tells us that the City's interests will be safeguarded and that it will not be ruled from Europe, but I am afraid that when we signed the Lisbon treaty that is what we signed up for, and I am sure that that is what will happen.
	We can observe all this with great fondness. It is an entertaining spectacle. What is more, it is free to air, like ITV. But we must pay for it in the long run, and that is what I want to talk about today. The costs of Europe to this country are heavy, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said. At a time when we are moving into a climate of cuts, economies and straitened resources, we are paying a heavy price to stay in Europe and contribute to it. For instance, we are paying the increased rebate, which I thought was agreed to by Tony Blair while he was Prime Minister as the first down payment on the job of President in the future. Unfortunately, the down payment was taken but the item was not forthcoming in the sales. Thanks to that, our net contribution rose to £6 billion. It rises again with devaluation, which reduces the value of the pound, to about £8 billion.
	That is only the budget contribution; we also contribute to other projects, such as Galileo and others. With Galileo, a satellite guidance system is being designed, and we are being charged for it, even though the Americans provide such a system for free. That will cost £2 billion to £3 billion. Then we have the common agricultural policy. The OECD estimates the cost of that-the resource cost, anyway-to be £15 billion. The cost to us of the common fisheries policy, which has not been mentioned but certainly needs to be abolished, is about £3 billion. That is the cost to us in fish from British waters that are landed not in Britain but at other European ports, where they are processed.
	That all represents a huge cost across the exchanges, and we have to finance it with a declining pound. Our balance of trade deficit last year was £48 billion, and the cost of Europe adds up to between £20 billion and £25 billion. In other words, about half our balance of trade deficit goes on financing membership of the European Union. That is not the only cost, because there are other, more internal costs. We have the cost of regulation, which the CBI estimates to be between £20 million and £40 million, and the cost of low growth, because European economies, including ours, have grown about 1.2 per cent. less than other advanced countries outside Europe. The cumulative loss of growth amounts to 0.5 per cent. of GDP a year, which is about another £7 billion, so the total cost of Europe is more than £50 billion-to an economy that will be crippled and straitened by the need for economies and cuts in the years ahead.
	What are the British people going to say when they are told that we have to cut the health service, education, and other services or benefits, in order to maintain this large contribution to Europe? Will they be dancing in the streets, as our Government might like, or will they become angry, upset and alienated? It is a tremendous burden to bear for membership of a club that is actually damaging our economy-an economy in which we are running a massive and growing trade deficit.
	My hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech that in dealing with the recession, a unity of purpose had emerged. Well, it has not. What has emerged is the propensity of individual countries to do much the same thing, because the obvious thing to do in a deflationary situation is to expand one's spending-to introduce stimulus spending along Keynesian lines. I know that the Conservatives do not want to do that, but it is the obvious and sensible thing to do. The only commonality is that all countries have done so as a matter of individual volition, but Europe has damaged that process, because the euro makes it impossible for countries with a deficit, countries in difficulties or countries that have been hit by recession to devalue their currency as we have devalued ours.
	The pound is down by about 25 per cent., and that is good. It is an enormous economic stimulus; we will benefit from it, and manufacturing will grow and improve. Other European countries cannot devalue their currency, however: Ireland cannot do so, and that is why it has plunged deep into recession; Spain cannot do so; Italy cannot do so; and the Greek situation, whereby public sector borrowing is drying up because people want a premium on the interest rate paid, will spread like a contagion to the other euro countries. In that situation the euro becomes a tremendous burden to bear, and thank heavens we do not have to bear that burden. It was very far-sighted of our Prime Minister and the Labour party to keep us out of the euro.

Nigel Evans: This is a vital subject, and I am not having fun with it at all. The important point is not just the numbers, it is where those troops are. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the number who have actually fallen, because it indicates what sort of role they are playing when they are out in Afghanistan. We know that there are trouble spots and other areas in which people are less likely to come into danger than a G4S security guard in a factory in London. Some countries put conditions on the troops that they send, one of which is that it should be a nine-to-five job, and they don't want to come across any trouble, thank you very much. The chance of a body bag coming back is zero.
	That prompts me to ask what we mean when we talk about Europe acting together on this vital issue. Spain, for goodness' sake, has been one of the greatest victims of terrorist attacks-not by al-Qaeda as such, but people in that country know what terrorism is, as do people in a number of other countries. The war against terrorism affects us all and we must fight the battle together, in similar numbers and without conditions. That is important, because the 10,000 troops we have given are in the areas where there is most hostility. We know by the number of deaths that have sadly taken place that our troops are on the front line, in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan, shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America. That is where, I believe, the rest of Europe ought also to be. I would not dictate that there should be a Defence Minister in Europe who says that that must happen, but every Prime Minister of every EU country must look at their responsibilities and obligations regarding that war, and I want to see their countries playing their part in it as we do.
	I am very much looking forward to the next general election. I am very sad that the Lisbon treaty has been signed and that the people of this country have been denied the opportunity of a referendum, which they were promised by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister. However, the reality is that we do not have that opportunity-the Lisbon treaty is law and came into force on 1 December.
	It is appropriate, without going over old battles and looking at the scars, which have been mentioned, to look to the future and ask what sort of Europe we want to create. I am very much in favour of Turkey, Croatia, which I believe is next in line, and many of the Balkan states, if they wish to join, acceding to the European Union. We should not be a closed club. France and Germany are worried about how Europe is developing. They want a much deeper European Union. We clearly do not, but do we want a European Union that does not close the door on other European countries.
	I am a proud member of the Council of Europe, in which there are 47 countries. Why should we turn around and tell Georgia or Ukraine, or indeed Turkey, that they can never join the European Union? They are all proud members of the Council of Europe. I believe we ought to consider expanding the EU as quickly as possible. Independent conditions should be laid down, and when countries meet them, they should be automatically eligible to join. That should be that-there should no politicking behind closed doors, as happens so much in the EU.
	I was looking down the list of the great, famous Europeans who act in our name. Michel Barnier is one of the most famous- [ Interruption. ] I should imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) would not be prepared to take one of those jobs. The list includes Antonio Tajani, Karel De Gucht, Connie Hedegaard, Günther Oettinger, Cecilia Malmström, and so it goes on. Our commissioners are led by José Manuel Barroso, whom people would be very unlikely to recognise if he walked into their local. All those people act in our name as part of this great European creation that has come about since we joined in 1973 and since we last had a referendum in 1975.
	It is about time we struck back for this country. We get elected here, unlike Cathy Ashton, and we have a democratic right to speak on behalf of our constituents. The one thing that our electorate enjoy almost more than anything else is the opportunity to get rid of an unpopular Government and remove people they do not like. That is impossible with EU commissioners, all of whom earn considerable sums of money, as do the new President and foreign secretary. The President earns, I think, £350,000, but that might be €350,000-they are virtually the same value these days anyway. Those people, whom nobody would know, but who are governing in our name, earn incredible sums of money.
	I look forward to the next general election when we will be able to give the British public an opportunity to put a party-the Conservative party-into power that will wrestle back those powers that have been given away, so that we can dictate how those powers are used. I look forward to the general election, after which we will have a sovereignty Bill, because it will give the people of this country an opportunity to put into power a Government who believe in the sovereignty of this Parliament. The next election will be vital. The Government made one of their gravest mistakes in the handling of the Lisbon treaty and denying people a referendum. It has provided a great opportunity for narrow, xenophobic parties such as the British national party and the UK Independence party to claim that they speak on behalf of the British people. Well, they do not, and I do not believe that either of those parties will have a Member of Parliament after the election. But they have been given a bigger platform by being able to claim that the Prime Minister denied the British people what they had been promised. The biggest error and the most undemocratic thing that the Prime Minister did was to deny that referendum because he knew what the result would be. He denied the British people the opportunity to vote no, and that was a shocking own goal.

Robert Goodwill: Even the Liberal Democrats-dare I say it?- occasionally come up with good ideas. I know that that is a controversial statement.
	The Conservative party used to sit with the European People's party and the European Democrats, the biggest group in the European Parliament. The European Democrats "bit" was the Conservative "bit". It was recognised that the British Conservatives had a separate Whip. The reason for that was the fundamental difference between the British Conservatives' vision of Europe-I suppose it could be summed up by the famous slogan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), "In Europe, not run by Europe"-and the majority of the rest of the European People's party, who were intent on establishing a federal united states of Europe.
	That system worked well to a degree. Many of us who were MEPs engaged well within the group. I was a deputy co-ordinator in the environment committee, and a member of the bureau. However, there was always a niggling doubt about whether the thrust of the group's policy was going in the direction that the majority of the people who had voted for me in Scarborough and Whitby at the last election would have wished. I was delighted when our new group was formed because it allowed us to be a good neighbour to the EPP, rather than an annoying and irritating tenant from time to time.
	I predict that the operations of the EPP group and the new Conservative group in the Parliament will work very well. Having been a member of the environment committee, I know that in order to secure the majorities that are needed-particularly on Second Reading, when a majority among those eligible to vote is required rather than a majority among those who turn up on the day-it is vital to get the other political groups together and, often, to forge a compromise agreement. I am sure that the new Conservative group will be the first port of call for the EPP when it wishes to get its amendments through. I often found that I had to do deals with all sorts of people-green communists, former communists, Liberal Democrats and, on many occasions, socialists-to get amendments through.
	The criticisms levelled at the new group are largely unfounded, and I do not believe the British Conservatives will lose influence as a result of the new arrangement. As has already been pointed out, Michael Harbour, an excellent west midlands Conservative MEP who used to work in the motor industry, will chair the internal market committee. I can think of no one more suited to advancing the work of that committee. Philip Bradbourn, another west midlands MEP, is to chair the committee for relations with Canada, and-this is more significant, in my view-Struan Stevenson is to chair the committee for relations between the European Parliament and the new Iraqi Parliament. Those are important positions of influence.
	Every committee also has a team of co-ordinators who dole out the reports and sort out the business. In the past, it was often frustrating when there was no Conservative, or even like-minded EPP, co-ordinator. Deals were done behind closed doors without our being involved.
	The new group will have a co-ordinator on every single committee, which means we will have a voice on every committee when those important reports are given out.  [Interruption.] The Minister says we will not get any, but only last week Martin Callanan, a British Conservative from the north-east of England, secured the very important report on light commercial vehicles and CO2-I am sure the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) will be interested to learn that that report has been secured by a British Conservative-which will enable him to take that legislation through the Parliament in the same way as a Westminster Minister takes legislation through this Parliament, and steer it in the right direction.
	I therefore strongly feel that this new group will be able to secure such important reports. Indeed, we might do particularly well in securing smaller reports. I remember that the EPP and the Socialist group would often save up their points for a bidding battle on a very big report, and the smaller groups such as the Union for Europe of the Nations and the European Democratic party would therefore pick up along the way many smaller reports, which nevertheless had a lot of influence on business and employment in the fields they addressed.
	Many people do not understand how the rapporteurs and co-ordinators work; when people do, they can understand just how much influence we will have. That particularly comes into play in the context of conciliations. I was a member of the EPP's conciliation group. We had meetings that went on late into the night, sometimes finishing at 4 o'clock in the morning. I remember a meeting on the waste electronics directive. We were very keen to prevent the producers of printers from making printer ink cartridges non-recyclable by putting a smart chip in them, which would mean that they could not be replaced. I and a Liberal Democrat Member, Chris Davies, threatened to walk out, make that committee inquorate and force the Environment Council to give in on that point. That is an example of a Liberal Democrat who represents a small group being able to make an important impact on the work of the Parliament. The European Parliament is not like our Parliament, where we are either batting or fielding. There, we all take turns to bat, and the new group will have some very good opportunities to do so.
	Bizarrely, it has also been said that President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel will not talk to the leader of my party if the Conservatives are not in the same group as their parties. It is interesting that they talk to the current Prime Minister of this country, even though he is in a different group that is diametrically opposed to their views.
	One particularly frustrating aspect of my time in that Parliament was that, in trying to cobble together deals and get vital majorities in Britain's interest, we were often working closely with officials and Ministers of the British Labour Government, but their own Members of the European Parliament refused to take the advice they were getting from Westminster. Instead, they sometimes sided with their European socialist colleagues and blew legislation out of the water. I am thinking in particular of the large combustion plants directive. We sought amendments to exempt some of the smaller coal-burning stations that operated for short periods at peak demand. The advice from the British people in Brussels-the United Kingdom Permanent Representation-and from British Ministers was that we should get those amendments through to protect our coal mining industry and those coal stations in case of peak demand. However, Labour MEPs combined with colleagues in the European Socialist group to undermine those amendments and prevent that from happening. As we warned at the time, that has contributed to some of the energy supply problems we now face in this country.
	Many of the new Members of the European Parliament from newer states such as the Czech Republic and Poland very much share our view that we should have a Europe of independent member states. That may be because they have experience of being dominated by another capital-Moscow-and do not want quickly to exchange that for another situation where domination, albeit more benign, can be imposed from Brussels.
	Whatever happened to subsidiarity? Perhaps the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech. I remember that, when I first arrived in the European Parliament, subsidiarity was the buzz word. The fashionable topics were devolving power down to member states and only making decisions at the European level if that was absolutely necessary. In the new treaty, however, things are going in the opposite direction, which is a great concern.
	I am very proud that Polish and Czech members from mainstream parties in their countries have joined us in our group. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at my colleagues-especially Michael Kaminski, whom I have known for six or seven years-are absolutely unfounded and I hope they will not be repeated in this Chamber.
	A lot has been said about the waste involved in Europe and the fact that its budget has not been signed off for 14 consecutive years. I speak as a farmer who has received common agricultural policy aid, but the CAP has distorted markets and, in particular, third-world access to them. How can anyone justify spending €1 billion of taxpayers' money every year subsidising tobacco production in southern European states? Much of this tobacco is of such low quality that it cannot be consumed in the European Union and has to be exported to third-world countries, where, obviously, it contributes to health problems. How can that situation be justified?
	How can the Strasbourg Parliament be justified? It is outrageous. I recall the frustrations of having to pack my stuff into those tin boxes-we always missed out the important file that we should have taken-and of trying to work there; the expense of travelling there, and of transporting all the officials there and putting them up in hotels; and the difficulties of working there. One way to make progress would be to prevent the continuation of the Strasbourg fiasco.
	I shall discuss two European institutions that I have not even heard mentioned in this Chamber in the nearly five years that I have been a Member: the Committee of the Regions; and the European Economic and Social Committee-ECOSOC. Now that the European Parliament has come of age-now that we have co-decision on fisheries and more co-decision is coming into the Parliament-what justification can there be for the duplication that ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions represents? When I was in the European Parliament, I discovered, by accident, that a report I was handling on motorcycle emissions was also being discussed in the Committee of the Regions. I do not know what happened to the results of those deliberations-they certainly were not communicated to the Parliament. They might have been communicated to the Council, but I never heard Ministers or officials referring to the concerns that had been expressed in the Committee of the Regions.
	That is bad enough, but then there is the cost to consider. The Committee of the Regions has a brand new building-it might be four or five years old-on rue Belliard in Brussels. I managed to find the accounts for ECOSOC, from which I discovered that its annual budget is €120 million. The Committee does not give money out to people to do things; it is a purely bureaucratic organisation that discusses matters and duplicates the work of the European Parliament. May I make a suggestion that the Minister might like to adopt if he gets the opportunity to see how these Committees can be reviewed? We got this suggestion through the environment committee in the European Parliament, but it foundered at the plenary session. We said, "If member states are so keen for the Committee of the Regions and ECOSOC to continue to do their work, why don't they pick up the bill for the subsistence and travel costs of the members from their own countries?" Why not have such costs justified at the Dispatch Box in this House when the Budget is considered?
	I suspect that if we had to put our hands in our own pockets, rather than just relying on the European budget, we would look more closely at the work of these committees and ask whether we really need them. I suspect that we would ask whether they are now superfluous because the European Parliament has developed from a talking shop to a real legislature, and the two committees are still mired in that talking shop situation. I hope the Minister will think about this matter, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) becomes the Minister for Europe, perhaps he will think about how we can save some money and restore some common sense.
	People are perhaps disenchanted with Britain's membership of the European Union now. I am enthusiastic that Britain should remain a member, but I am disappointed that people did not get an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon treaty. Such a vote was promised by all three parties at the previous election. There is no point in having a referendum now; there is no point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nobody should be in any doubt as to who is responsible here-it is the Prime Minister of this country, who denied people the referendum we thought Tony Blair had promised us.
	Europe should be more democratic and closer to the people. By signing up to the Lisbon treaty, the Government have moved in the opposite direction. They must be aware of that, as they were punished at the European elections with the lowest share of the vote ever achieved by the Labour party in a national election. I believe that they will be punished again at the next general election.

William Cash: That is not so, I am afraid. I shall not spend the rest of my speech explaining why, although I will be happy to talk to the hon. Lady about it later. I shall be dealing with the matter in due course in Parliament as a whole.
	The hon. Lady referred to the competence question. In relation to the German constitutional court, I have argued for a long time-not in an anti-German sense, but simply because that country is the predominant force in Europe-that Germany is creating a situation in which it determines, through the Karlsruhe court, whether its own constitution will determine the future of Europe. The court is saying that Germany will not do anything inconsistent with its constitution. Gerhard Schröder put it this way a few years ago: "I am European because I am German." That is important because we have to understand that this is about not only the law but matters of foreign policy and the national interests of individual countries represented as the member states of the European Union.
	There was a similar situation, although a long time ago, with regard to the development of the United States. John Taylor, a great ally of Thomas Jefferson on states' rights, set out unequivocally the basis on which in the United States constitution the states' rights were to be absolutely at the heart of the American federal system. The European Union does not exactly have a federal system, but all the necessary ingredients are there, with one great exception. In relation to economic competitiveness, the single market is governed by a uniform system that, as I said in the debate on the financial regulations, prevents competitiveness. We do not have states' rights in the European Union. One reason for the success of the American economy has been those states' rights, which have created an economic environment within which the United States has been capable of developing its economy. We have a mixture of political failure and over-exuberance-perhaps even over-indulgence-in the judicial field, in respect of the European Court of Justice and, quite probably, of our own Supreme Court.
	In addition to that, we have economic failure. The reality is that Europe is not working. There is very high unemployment, as there always has been. I said this during the debates on the Maastricht treaty as well. The bottom line is that there is interference in every nook and cranny of every part of the lives of the people whom we represent. It does not work; that is why we need to have renegotiation.
	In a referendum, which I believe is still essential, the question that I would put, as I said in  The Daily Telegraph the other day, is "Should the United Kingdom renegotiate the terms of its relationship within the European Union?" That is not an "in or out" question, but, believe me, if we presented it to people we would get at least 80 per cent. saying yes, we should renegotiate those terms. That would then enable the United Kingdom to lead the process of renegotiation to turn this increasingly amorphous, homogenous and utterly useless organisation into something that could work effectively on the basis of political co-operation and trade-a semi-EFTA, or European Free Trade Association, arrangement-and get rid of the notion of European government, which is completely autocratic and is destroying our democracy.
	These are not just the rantings of a Eurosceptic. This is about good government and democracy, and proper accountability, in relation to the wishes of the electorate whom we are supposed to represent. I agree with the hon. Lady about the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons set up under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). That is nibbling at the root of the problem of how to return real accountability to this House. We should rediscover the confidence to be able to hold the Government to account and to ensure that we are not just run by the Whips through a process of advancement, preferment, ministerial office and whatever else. We represent the people of this country, and it is our duty and task to ensure that we are guaranteeing that they are governed in a proper and sensible manner. By ceding this massive degree of control to the European Union, we have abrogated our responsibility.
	I can understand that in 1945 people did not want to have another war in Europe. My father was killed in the war. However, times have changed. The problem is that the arrangements that were set up and the development of the functions of the European Union have not kept pace with what is required. We have allowed more and more integration when we should have been creating an association of member states. That is what we should have been doing, and that is what we have to come back to; otherwise the people of Europe will suffer as well as the people of the United Kingdom. We have to restore to the people, through the ballot box, real democracy on the ground. This is not just a theoretical and ideological approach-it is about making Europe work in the interests of the people whom we represent, as we are completely failing to do so.
	We are told that we have to put the economy ahead of the European issue, but the trouble is that the economy is affected by the European issue. There is over-regulation, which costs European businesses €600 billion a year. There are the problems of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, and so on. We have to restore government to the people of this country. That requires a referendum of a proper kind, which I will continue to insist on, and a sovereignty Bill that would ensure-I have a wording that would achieve this objective-that we have a template against which we can repatriate powers and force renegotiation within the European Union. That is our objective, and that is what we must achieve. It is in the national interest, and we must do it immediately.

Mark Harper: I want to make a brief contribution.
	I would like to draw the Minister's attention to my earlier questions, two of which he failed to answer, but to which I hope he will return in his winding-up speech. The first was about why the Government chose not to fulfil their manifesto promise to give the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. They, along with the other major parties in the House, promised to do that. He failed to answer that with his unfortunate, humorous remarks.
	Furthermore, will the Minister answer my question about the Prime Minister trumpeting the fact that Baroness Ashton is a Briton and that her promotion to High Representative will give Britain a voice in the European Council and Commission? To be fair, the Minister has not done that. In fact, he and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) accurately pointed out that Baroness Ashton will of course represent the Commission, not Britain. He was honest enough to say that, but the Prime Minister has not been putting it in quite the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister cast his opinion on that when he winds up.
	My main point-I have a couple of subsidiary ones-draws attention to something that another Member has referred to already. The title of the debate is "European Affairs", but in such debates we tend to launch immediately into EU matters, forgetting that there are other countries in Europe. We also then become very introspective and focus only on our future in Europe.
	Conservative Members are often criticised by Labour Members-this is one of their favourite lines-for being little Englanders or, as I heard once, for not liking Europe because it has foreigners in it. My problem is that Europe is not foreign enough! It constitutes a very small part of the world's population and will increasingly represent a smaller share of the world's economy. My problem is that, if we spend too much time focusing on our economic performance relative to other members of the EU, we will lose sight of the fact that we must compete, win business and capture markets in the rest of the rapidly growing world. If our businesses and future prosperity are to be assured, we need to keep an eye on the rest of the world and not obsess about our position in the EU. That is something the Government often forget to do.
	I see now from looking at my notes that it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) who mentioned foreigners, while talking about my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). As I said, my argument is that Europe is not foreign enough.
	One reason why we should consider our position from a global perspective is that our interests are not always aligned and we are often in competition with other parts of the EU. One need only look at our trade arrangements. If we look at the countries to which we export our goods, we see that our single largest trading partner is the United States of America. If we look through the trading figures of our largest European neighbours, we see that they trade with the United States to a much lesser degree and that much more of their trade is with other EU countries, so there is a significant difference there. Sometimes our interests are not aligned with our colleagues'.
	Owing to our history and other relationships in the world, we have many other forums in which to argue our case-for example, the Commonwealth. The Heads of Government meeting took place recently, which the Government made much of and trumpeted. That is rare for them because they often pretend that the Commonwealth does not exist. However, that is one forum in which our place in the world can be argued. Given the size of the Commonwealth, the number of people it contains and its possible significance in dealing with climate change-it contains India-it might be a more significant place than the EU in which to argue some of these matters, and it is certainly as important as the EU.
	When thinking about our interests and place in the world, we must not focus only on the EU; we must take a wider, more global view. The trends over the next few years are very interesting. The European Commission's research department has prepared an interesting document called "The World in 2025: Rising Asia and Socio-ecological Transition"-not a terribly catchy title, I admit. However, some of its statistics are very interesting:
	"In 2025, the population of the European Union will only account for 6.5 % of the world population."
	The population will be much older than that elsewhere, as well.
	The document also says:
	"In 2025 world production will almost have doubled (in relation to 2005). The USA-EU-Japan triad will no longer dominate the world",
	although it points out that the United States will preserve its economic leadership. One or two colleagues referred to a united states of Europe and those who are trying to create a federal state, with a President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister and other pretensions to being a single country. However, if they are trying to model that on the United States of America, the bit they are missing is the United States' economic dynamism and fast economic growth. Even in 2025, the United States will still be the largest economy in the world and still have a high per capita income. That part of the United States' record is the one we want to emulate, rather than trying to turn the countries in the European Union into a united states of Europe.
	The Commission's report makes it clear that
	"The centre of gravity of world production will move towards Asia. The group made up of China-India-Korea will weigh as much as the European Union."
	As I have said, we have relations with our Commonwealth partners, and particularly close relations with India. We should be ensuring that British firms and businesses are in there winning orders from Indian consumers and businesses, to ensure that we get our fair share. As the report says, India may be
	"the sixth economic power of the world"
	by 2025, ahead of Italy and only a little behind France. We need to ensure that we get our fair share of that business, but I am concerned that we will miss out.
	In my earlier remarks I touched on the settlement of the top jobs at the European summit the other week. I have already mentioned what the European High Representative is going to get paid, but the President of the European Council will earn £320,000, making him the highest paid leader, if that is the word-he is slightly more of a chairman than a chief. He will earn more than any leader of a western country, with a huge staff and a significant number of press officers to get the message out there, and will have a £5 million reserve fund to dip into as his job develops.
	Interestingly, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggested that it was welcome that Mr. Van Rompuy had been elected as the President of the European Council because he will just be taking instructions from everybody else. However, that is not what French President Nicholas Sarkozy said. He said he had known Mr. Van Rompuy for many years, adding:
	"talk to those who know him well...and you'll see. I'm going to tell you something: I think he's one of the strongest personalities around the Council table."
	That is quite worrying when we think, to take just one example, about what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Van Rompuy's views about Turkey. As one or two others have said, we are strongly in favour, as are the Government, rightly, of Turkish accession to the European Union, both from a strategic and military perspective-Turkey is a strong and close NATO ally-and, as the Minister correctly said, from the point of view of energy security.

Peter Bone: I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not here earlier, because some of these points were made by earlier contributors. The value of the pound against the euro has decreased, and because we are not in the euro we have been able to make our products more accessible and cheaper. The economy is in a terrible mess, and the Government did not abolish boom and bust-most people, even the Liberal Democrats, realise that-but it would all have been far, far worse if we had been in the euro.
	I wish to return to the subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) intervened on me: the very important point about cost. I am not going to talk about the gross numbers of tens of billions of pounds that we pay in gross taxes to the European Union-but they are unbelievable. We do get some of that back, although first the money goes through the European Union, and it can decide whether we get it in the end. The whole thing is a complete farce, and of course the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) was right to say that we should decide on that and it should not go through the European Union. Even after that, there is a net cost. We are part of the customs union, but there is a net cost to it, which unbelievably-I am sure that you will find this hard to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker-was £2.5 billion last year. Next year that cost will be either £6.4 billion or £7.2 billion, depending on which Government figures one believes. That means an increase of at least £4 billion.
	We talk of a time when we shall have to cut public expenditure. We know that we have a great deal more interest to pay on the huge debt that the Government are racking up and we know, unfortunately, that many more people are out of work so that more money has to be spent on unemployment. But why on earth do we have to pay an additional £4 billion to belong to this club, which most of the people in this country do not even want to belong to in the first place?

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the papers recently supplied to the European Scrutiny Committee, the total draft budget for 2010 is £340 billion? As our net contribution is £6 billion, and given the amount that Europe is demanding by way of an increase, no wonder we are now having to contribute more and more. It does not even work. This is completely mad.

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention by my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. There are two fundamental issues: first, a shortage of donors, full stop; and secondly, a particular shortage of donors where specific ethnicity is involved.
	That brings me to the launch, in September 2007, of the education programme aimed at promoting awareness of bone marrow, blood and organ donation among 14 to 16-year-old pupils in state and independent secondary schools across the UK. The programme was recommended for use in the following classes: personal and social health education, economics, citizenship, science, and information and communication technologies; it was later extended to religious education. The resource comprised a teachers' pack and a website and includes lesson plans, activity sheets, real-life stories, debating topics, games, films and other activities. I believe that the website has won an award because it is so good.
	In 2008, the Jeanette Crizzle Trust commissioned BJS Research Ltd, an independent market research company, to conduct research to assess the level of awareness of the scheme among schools. The research found that only 3 per cent. of schools had used the resource in the first year, but the vast majority said that they were likely to use it in the future. However, 77 per cent. were not aware of it. In September 2008, I am pleased to say, the Secretaries of State for Health and for Children, Schools and Families wrote a letter to head teachers in all secondary schools in England promoting the scheme. That was a wonderful initiative.
	In March 2009, six months after the letter from the Secretaries of State had been sent out, the Jeanette Crizzle Trust conducted research that found that among the 250 schools that were surveyed, 28 per cent. were aware of the letter, and 4 per cent. had a vague memory of it, but 68 per cent. had no recollection at all or no record of its ever having been received. Of the 28 per cent. who confirmed that they had received the letter, 100 per cent. told the trust that it was not the intention of the school to implement the Give and Let Live resource in the foreseeable future. That is of course extremely disappointing given the personal intervention by the Secretaries of State.
	The Jeanette Crizzle Trust has commissioned research through annual reports in 2008 and 2009, as well as the specific piece of research following the letter sent out by the Secretaries of State. The latest research shows that of 512 schools surveyed, only 22 per cent. of teachers are aware of the programme, which is no change on the first year. Some 18 per cent. said that they had received the pack, which is more than the 11 per cent. in the first year, but only 7 per cent. said that they had used the resource. That is hugely disappointing given the award-winning nature of the programme that the Government put together. In October, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), wrote to Mr. Crizzle to say that as far as the Department was concerned, 68 per cent. of secondary school teachers had ordered the pack. That may or may not be true, but the Jeanette Crizzle Trust's research suggested that only 7 per cent. were actually using the programme.
	The Department of Health recognises the economic case for increased organ donation, and I am sure that we will hear in a minute of the wonderful things that it is doing to promote it across the country, not least because transplantation could save the NHS something like £150 million a year by reducing dialysis costs. In the correspondence with Mr. Crizzle, the Minister of State said:
	"That is why we are fully supportive of NHSBT's work"-
	the work of NHS Blood and Transplant-
	"to drive up donation rates, and we are putting additional investment into the infrastructure for organ donation."
	However, Mr. Crizzle and the trust are concerned that the Department is relying too much on the figure of 68 per cent. of schools having ordered the pack. In a letter to the Minister of State last month, he wrote that
	"this 68 per cent. is just stating how many teachers have ordered the programme. It does not state how many intend to use it."
	The Government say that 33 per cent. of teachers have taught the programme using the resource, but Mr. Crizzle pointed out that that
	"is based upon a survey of 86 teachers...which is not truly representative of the number of UK schools and therefore the level of accuracy is questionable. I should point out that our annual surveys are based upon a national sample of 500 schools and are therefore significantly more statistically robust."
	In the research conducted to see whether schools had received the letter from the two Secretaries of State, head teachers unanimously said that they had no intention of launching the programme and, according to Mr. Crizzle, gave the following reasons:
	"There are other Government directives which have a higher priority...There is no additional funding for the Give and Let Live resource...Limited resources within the school preventing them including the Give and Let Live pack",
	and finally:
	"They will find it difficult to fit everything into the timetable."
	Mr. Crizzle's letter concluded:
	"Taking the above into account, it is fair and reasonable to suggest that our August 2009 survey, which showed that just 7 per cent. of UK schools have accepted the programme, is accurate."
	I conclude where I started, by congratulating the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families on getting the scheme under way. It is a wonderful programme. But I ask them to please, please put far more emphasis on promoting it. We need to get every school in the land involved, so that we can encourage more donors to come forward. It is a wonderful idea, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to promote it far more.

Ann Keen: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for securing the debate and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) for his important intervention. I recognise the admirable work of the hon. Member for Kettering in supporting Adam Crizzle, who, as he described, has campaigned tirelessly to raise young people's awareness of donation since the very sad death of his wife Jeanette. I was sad to hear of her having died in such unfortunate and tragic circumstances, having given so much to her community as a teacher.
	All forms of donation are important, which makes the role of NHSBT, as the special health authority responsible for ensuring the supply of blood, organs, stem cells and tissue for patients, so crucial. It saves lives every single day, and we should all be thankful for it. NHSBT needs to collect 7,000 units of blood every day to ensure that patients have access to life-saving blood and products when they are needed. However, in order to secure the blood supply to hospitals and patients, 350,000 new blood donors must be recruited every year to replace those who have had to stop donating. Thanks to the efforts of the National Blood Service and the altruism of existing donors, there has not been a shortage of blood in the UK for many years.
	The Government are proud of the support we provide to NHSBT, and committed to continuing that in future years. That includes initiatives such as the "Give and Let Live" campaign, to which the hon. Member for Kettering referred. Designed to raise awareness among young people of the importance of donating, "Give and Let Live" is an award-winning educational resource pack produced by NHSBT. Developed to be delivered by teachers as part of personal health and social education, science studies or religious education, it is aimed at 14 to 16-year-olds. Since its launch in September 2007, it has been made available to 6,000 state and independent schools across the UK.
	The independent evaluation of that programme showed that, as of September 2009, 68 per cent. of secondary schools have ordered the pack. Promoting altruistic donation to young people, who will be the donors of tomorrow, is not just good for patients who need transplants but exceptionally good for our society.
	Other initiatives are being considered. My Department and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are considering how best to raise awareness of the various forms of donation among children and young people. Another education programme, "Register and Be a Lifesaver", which has worked with the "Give and Let Live" campaign, has just completed a successful pilot phase. Delivered in partnership with the Anthony Nolan Trust, a key third-sector partner in so much of this work, the programme was set up following a campaign by the journalist Adrian Sudbury, who died of leukaemia and used the last months of his life to campaign for greater awareness of donation. It targets 16 to 18-year-olds and seeks to empower young people to make their own decisions on becoming a donor.
	However, it is not always easy to meet the needs of everyone and provide treatment to all those who need it. That is especially so when we are trying to find a suitable stem cell unit to use in the treatment of acute blood disorders such as leukaemia and anaemia. In those cases, it is important that a match donor be found. A related donor, usually a brother or sister, is the best chance of achieving that, but unfortunately only 25 to 35 per cent. of patients have a match sibling. We therefore rely on unrelated donors.
	Because the transplants have become more common over the years, it is easy to forget just how difficult that work can be. Finding a donor who is genetically matched to the person needing treatment, fit enough to donate and willing to do so is a mixture of luck, hard work and professional dedication of epic proportions. Every time the process is successful, it is a major achievement that only those directly involved truly appreciate.
	The task becomes even harder when the patient's genetic background is complex, as was the case for Jeanette, whose early death led to the introduction of the "Give and Let Live" campaign, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, the British Bone Marrow Registry, its counterpart in Wales and the Anthony Nolan Trust, which runs the largest bone marrow donor register in the UK, do that work daily. More than 13 million unrelated donors are available in registries worldwide. Currently, most come from a Caucasian ethnic background. Therefore, a typical patient from that racial group has more than a 90 per cent. chance of finding a matched unrelated donor, but that figure falls substantially for patients from ethnic minorities or for those who have a mixed genetic inheritance, who have only a 30 or 40 per cent. of finding a good match. Jeanette's husband must be congratulated on the tireless work he did to save her.
	The Government have taken and continue to take strategic and targeted action to tackle the problem. We must not forget that the collection and use of bone marrow is but one source of stem cells for transplant. The NHS cord blood bank is the fourth biggest in the world, with some 14,000 stored umbilical cord blood units, and it has agreed business plans with NHSBT. We are investing nearly £10 million to increase the size of the bank to 20,000 stored units by 2013. A central aim of the NHS cord blood bank is to redress the imbalance of minority group representation on bone marrow registries by focusing collection at hospitals with ethnically diverse catchment areas. As a consequence, approximately 40 per cent. of donations come from the minority ethnic population, increasing the chances of finding matches for patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds.
	The NHS cord blood bank has one of the best records of harvesting and banking unique tissue types to add to those available for transplant in the UK and worldwide. As part of this continued work programme, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has responsibility for public health, opened its newest collection site at St. George's hospital, Tooting, in October. As with all NHSBT's cord blood collection sites, St. George's was chosen because it serves families from a diverse multicultural mix.
	We fully recognise the essential contribution of this work in supplying the NHS with suitable stem cells for transplant-work that saves lives. That is why we are determined to facilitate and promote discussion and debate on the way forward for the harvesting and use of stem cells for transplant. A review of the collection and use of umbilical cord blood, commissioned by the Department of Health last year, found practice in the UK to be comparable to that elsewhere. The review recommended further, detailed consideration of the collection and use of cord blood and a joined-up approach to service provision. Since that time, discussions have been held with a wide range of stakeholders on the issues we face in the collection, storage, commissioning and use of stem cells for transplant, irrespective of the source from which they are derived. We want to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of this work and we are able to meet our obligations in matching stem cell donations to patients in need of a transplant.
	Whole organ donation is also critical work. Currently, three people die every day in the UK while waiting for a suitable donated organ. More than 10,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant, a figure that rises by 8 per cent. every year. The Prime Minister has called for 20 million registered donors by 2010 and 25 million by 2013. NHSBT is running a UK-wide public awareness campaign to encourage more people to join the organ donor register and to talk to their families about their wishes. Also, it will soon be distributing information packs to MPs with an interest in donation and organising an event for MPs and stakeholders to raise awareness of the challenges of its work.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of progress in schools. I know that all hon. Members are aware of the rigidity of the curriculum when it comes to such changes. I hope he understands that my role is not to look at the educational curriculum, although I believe that this debate is important and was well deserved. I will ask to meet the Minister for Schools and Learners and raise with him the importance of this debate, to see whether we can reconsider how we can encourage and facilitate participation in the scheme. As is accepted on both sides of the House, there are certain ministerial and departmental procedures to go through. However, I have given the hon. Gentleman a commitment, and I will seek to keep him informed and perhaps encourage him to come with me to that meeting.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.